ITT: movies only you like

Attached: 45158AF6-9B9C-49D9-8BBA-F2438EC7F89C.jpg (284x405, 47K)

it's a bad screenplay tho, very standard Sorkin, it doesnt give room for actors to breathe, it relies entirely on people talking. Significant events are literally told through news clips. It doesn't allow for the director to do anything interesting with the mise-en-scène nor does it allow to stage any real events other than people talking to give exposition

>why do you have problems with your daughter now
>she allowed her mother who i hate to sell the house
>you must talk to her
>i said i wouldnt pay her college
>she's mad
>she believed me

etc

Attached: 1550779973490.jpg (456x426, 100K)

I respectfully disagree with you.

Attached: 1552631967566.jpg (247x204, 9K)

based anti-Sorkin poster

You fired me!
>no you fired me!
FLASHBACK
blablablabla
FLASHBACK BLABLABLA

>You always planned on going back to apple?
Do you remember the probe they send in the 70s? Let me explain. Blablablablabla

The culture’s veneration of Steve Jobs — co-founder of the Apple microcomputer empire, pitchman of every gadgeteer’s dreams — confirms this era’s secular idolatry. The new movie Steve Jobs confirms how bad a big-budget bio-pic can be.

Half of the film’s impact comes from its pedigree: It is based on the official biography by the prominent journalist Walter Isaacson and directed by the Oscar-winning British filmmaker Danny Boyle from a screenplay by TV potentate Aaron Sorkin. It is as impossible to ignore their collaboration as it was impossible that it would work. These men of the zeitgeist identify with Jobs’s hubris and show hip reverence in line with today’s sycophancy, rather than exploring the cultural quandary of why the world has sold its soul to a manufacturer of sleekly designed products — a new religion disguised as a technological revolution.

The film’s worshipful triumvirate uses a flashback structure to tell Jobs’s life story as if preserving it in digital-era holy writ. (Boyle likes large-scale graphic displays, mixed-media imagery, and lookee camera movements.) History is recalled — and therefore unquestioned — through three stockholder presentations, years apart (for the Apple computer, the Next, and the iMac), where the iconic Jobs (Michael Fassbender) struts his stuff among mere mortals.

These presentations are like evangelical tent revivals. Jobs’s showy arrogance and the stockholders’ hosannas evoke Sermon on the Mount rapture. Geeks and investors genuflect before the man who burnished their dreams. Meanwhile, backstage, we see the mess of his private life: He demeans his co-workers, including inventor Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen), and his publicist, Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet), and resists the emotional claims of his out-of-wedlock daughter, Lisa (Makenzie Moss as Lisa at age five, then Perla Haney-Jardine at age 19).

Attached: cricketblog_armond_011211_0.jpg (500x253, 25K)

But what exactly did Jobs do to earn such ceremony? Sorkin’s awful script raises then glides past that question. In his recent films The Social Network and Moneyball, Sorkin created a lives-of-the-saints series geared to tabloid obsession. Jobs’s celebrity becomes Sorkin’s tautology: Jobs is great because he’s great. Big Boss. Supersalesman. Visionary Capitalist. (This mystique helps explain the adoration for Pixar, the digital animation company Jobs sold to the Disney corporation, and why its mediocre, formulaic films are greeted with messianic fealty.)

Like any Hollywood hack, Sorkin has assessed the culture’s acquiescent tendency. His TV writer’s idea of characterization is talkiness. (The best scene shows Jobs enduring parental frustration with a willful child.) The blabber in Steve Jobs is non-stop — with Sorkin’s particular spin from TV’s The West Wing and ER series: walking-and-talking. The characters rarely express the emotional temper of a situation; they’re always on the move, spouting “gotcha”s at each other.

If Steve Jobs were concerned with characterization or psychology, it would have to confront the values of this technology-and-celebrity-crazed era. Instead, as in The Social Network, a spoiled-brat billionaire evades judgment while being given a big-screen altar as a cultural icon. The brief, Citizen Kane–like backstory of Jobs’s childhood abandonment, adoption, then detachment from his Syrian father explains little. Fassbender’s sharp nose, square jaw, and blue eyes create a Jesus impression during a college-days flashback. Ironically Fassbender personifies a WASPy rather than Semitic ideal to suit the film’s status quo agenda. Boyle reduces this Rosebud insight to an emoticon.

Attached: 1551172073151.jpg (400x240, 12K)

Attached: glimpse_inside_the_mind_of_charles_swan_iii_ver6.jpg (601x755, 127K)

>His TV writer’s idea of characterization is talkiness.
yeah if Sorkin had to write a mute, a shy girl and a dumb stoic man who isn't witty he'd be fucked

Attached: DzdHdcMWoAIktH2.jpg (1147x1110, 210K)

His assessment of hack Sorkin is so spot on

The fact that the movie takes place during 3 walking conversations moments before giant events that never are shown on screen proves you don't know what mis en scene means and Danny Boyle does

>it's a bad screenplay tho, very standard Sorkin,
you're a brainlet if you can't see that sorkin has a wide range of quality in his screenplays, with the social network at the top and the american president at the very bottom.

blu ray when

Attached: THE APPLE.jpg (849x1251, 282K)

If I liked the social network, will I like this?

Fuck yes

Sorkin is a shitty writer simply because he can only write in one voice. No matter how many characters are involved in the dialogue, it just sounds like a monologue at different pitches. Every scene of every show / movie he's ever done. He is not only a pleb filter, he is a pseudo-intellectual filter.

social network is way better tho

Attached: ____54366404b4a85[1].jpg (220x330, 22K)

Attached: 11794_2_large.jpg (537x800, 179K)